MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292065809 · doi:10.1177/02676591261429826

Hemodynamic Monitoring during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4292065809 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Lorusso, Maria Elena De Piero, Silvia Mariani, Justine Mafalda Ravaux, Pasquale Nardelli, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, Fabio Guarracino, Nicolò Patroniti, Bas C. T. van Bussel, Iwan C.C. van der Horst, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Silver Heinsar, Kiran Shekar, Michael H. Yamashita, Nchafatso G. Obonyo, Anna Ciullo, Jordi Riera, Heidi J. Dalton, Anson Wang, Akram Zaaqoq, Graeme MacLaren, Kollengode Ramanathan, Jacky Y. Suen, Gianluigi Li Bassi, Kei Sato, John F. Fraser, Giles J. Peek, Rakesh C. Arora

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMinderoo FoundationUniversity of QueenslandEuropean CommissionWesley Medical ResearchFisher and Paykel Healthcare“la Caixa” FoundationPrince Charles Hospital FoundationHealth Research Board
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationHemodynamicsOxygenationMedicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundIn adult patients receiving veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV ECMO), cardiovascular performance plays a critical role in determining oxygen delivery, organ perfusion and safe titration of extracorporeal support. Despite the increasing VV ECMO use, contemporary guidance on hemodynamic monitoring remains limited and largely experience-based. This scoping review aimed to map available basic and advanced monitoring approaches and to identify current evidence gaps.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception until September 2025, along with reference lists of relevant articles. We included studies of any design reporting techniques, targets, or protocols for hemodynamic monitoring during VV ECMO.ResultsOf 465 records screened, 106 met inclusion criteria. No protocolized, evidence-based hemodynamic monitoring protocol specific to VV ECMO was identified. The available evidence was heterogeneous and mostly derived from physiologic studies or single-center observational cohorts. Findings were narratively synthesized across three domains: basic bedside monitoring, diagnostic/prognostic tools and advanced assessment of cardiopulmonary interaction. Across studies, no monitoring strategy consistently reduced time-to-wean or mortality. Observational data suggested that care bundles and multidisciplinary approaches may reduce complications. However, the risk of bias limits causal inference.ConclusionsDespite the complex interaction between native cardiovascular function and extracorporeal circulation, VV ECMO lacks consensus on evidence-based hemodynamic monitoring pathways. A pragmatic core monitoring bundle with tiered triggers for escalation is necessary. Future priorities include implementation models based on multidisciplinary teams, specific training, standardized bundles, and multicenter studies aimed to define right ventricular-centered targets to improve safety and clinical decision-making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207